• Home
• All tickets
• All wiki pages

Source for wiki WG1ReBallotRush version 1

author

kumoyuki

comment

ipnr

84.203.225.198

name

WG1ReBallotRush

readonly

0

text

Notes about results:

  * you may list as many of the options as you want in order of preference
  * you are encouraged to list all options
  * options are comma-delimited (ignoring space) and case-insensitive
  * you may write in your own option if you announce it to the list first
  * everything but the `preferences` line is free-form, and may be used for a rationale
  * `wg2` means "pass this issue to WG2"
  * `undecided` means I want to discuss this issue further
  * abstain by leaving the preferences blank

= WG1 Ballot Items To Finalize By Oct. 31 =

== WG1 - Modules ==

=== #2 Module System ===

As per the charter, we need a module system
proposal which allows sharing of code between
implementations.

This is one issue where we can't default to
the R5RS, since it has no module system. If
we can't come to consensus, we will have to
take the R6RS module system as-is.

Note the '''r6rs--''' option is just the
R6RS module system without versioning or
phasing.

  * '''Proposals:'''
    * '''ganz:''' ModulesGanz
    * '''hsu:''' ModulesAndPackagesArcfide
    * '''shinn:''' ModulesShinn
  * '''Options:''' ganz, hsu, shinn, r6rs, r6rs--, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' undecided, ganz, hsu, shinn, r6rs, r6rs--

Seriously. I have not had enough time to digest the various proposals on this topic. And I find it unfortunate that the voting system forces me to express an opinion on topics which I have not fully evaluated just to make sure that i give sufficient weight to my *actual* vote.

== WG1 - Core ==

=== #57 Simple randomness ===

Student programs often want a small amount of randomness, not
necessarily of very high quality.  Shall we provide a simple interface
to a random variables in WG1 Scheme?

  * '''Proposals:'''
    * '''cowan:''' RandomCowan
  * '''Options:''' cowan/core, cowan/module, srfi-27/core, srfi-27/module, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' no, wg2, srfi-27/module, cowan/module, srfi-27/core, cowan/core

This is essentially a strong *NO* vote. Again, I feel that this voting system here inapropriately conflates two issues: whether we should *have* such an interface, and *if* we should have such an interface, what shape it should have.

== WG1 - Exceptions ==

=== #18 Exception System ===

R6RS provided a detailed exception system with
support for raising and catching exceptions, using
a hierarchy of exception types.

Do we use this, or parts of it, or a new exception
system?

  * '''Proposals:'''
    * '''cowan:''' ExceptionHandlingCowan
  * '''Options:''' cowan/core, cowan/module, r6rs/core, r6rs/module, wg2, none, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' wg2, none, undecided, cowan/module, r6rs/module, cowan/core, r6rs/core

This is essentially a strong *NO* vote. Again, I feel that this voting system here inapropriately conflates two issues: whether we should *have* such an interface, and *if* we should have such an interface, what shape it should have. It is particularly frustrating to express any positive preference over what is essentially a binary issue just to give sufficient weight to my *no* vote.

== WG1 - I/O ==

=== #52 read/write cyclic data ===

SRFI-38 standardizes the #0=(1 . #0#) shared
structure notation for read/write.  In the case
of write, this can be expensive to compute, but
otherwise the common case of the repl printing
a cyclic structure results in an infinite loop.

Do we want to add support for this, as an option
or separate set of procedures?

`srfi-38` for separate procedures or `native` to require `read` and
`write` to handle cyclic notation.

  * '''Options:''' srfi-38/core, srfi-38/module, native, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' native, srfi-38/core, srfi-38/module, wg2, undecided, no

Again with a binary issue including a multi-valued one. In this case, however, I am in favor of the proposal because there should be no way to inadvertantly throw a built-in into an infinite loop.

== WG1 - Macros ==

=== #8 SRFI-46 ellipse specifier in syntax-rules ===

As an alternative to #7, SRFI-46 proposed
allowing an optional ellipse specified as
an identifier before the literals list in
syntax-rules:

  (syntax-rules ::: ()
     <ellipse now represented as ::: instead of ...>)

Do we allow this?

  * '''Options:''' yes/core, yes/module, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' undecided

The text above seems to incorrectly indicate a #7 from the previous ballot...

=== #9 tail patterns in syntax-rules ===

SRFI-46 and R6RS both allow a fixed number of
tail patterns following an ellipsis in a syntax-rules
pattern:

  (P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn)

R6RS further allows dotted tail patterns

  (P1 ... Pk Pe <ellipsis> Pm+1 ... Pn . Px)

where Px only matches a dotted list.

Do we allow either or both of these extensions?

  * '''Options:''' tail/core, tail/module, dotted-tail/core, dotted-tail/module, both/core, both/module, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' both/core, both/module, dotted-tail/core, tail/core, dotted-tail/module, tail/module, undecided, wg2, no

Doesn't dotted-tail == both? It certainly seems so from the syntax used above.

== WG1 - Numerics ==

=== #22 mantissa widths ===

R6RS introduced the concept of mantissa widths
as an alternative to the R5RS #s in numbers.
Do we want either or both of these?

  * '''Options:''' r5rs, r6rs, both, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' no, undecided, both, r5rs, wg2, r6rs

Don't break my R5RS code & data files!

== WG1 - Reader Syntax ==

=== #11 case-sensitivity ===

Does the reader fold case by default, and if so how?

Yes to fold-case (R5RS) no to preserve case (R6RS), additional votes
to come later from specific proposals.

  * '''Options:''' yes, no, implementation-determined, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' undecided, yes, no, implementation-determined

There may actually be no good answer to this issue. Usually I am against case-folding, but it *is* useful to have when talking about code, and relying on case to distinguish identifiers is arguably moderately evil.

=== #14 alternate comment syntax ===

R6RS provides support for #; nested sexp comments,
and #| ... |# nested block comments.  Do we include
either or both of these?

  * '''Options:''' sexp, block, both, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' sexp, both, wg2, block, no, undecided

== WG1 - Strings and Chars ==

=== #26 string normalization ===

R6RS provides procedures to explicitly convert
strings back and forth between the four Unicode
normalization forms.

The previous phrasing of this option was overly vague, referring to
"any form of normalization."  I've had to treat `yes` votes as
undecided for lack of a better default.  If you voted `yes` before
please choose one of the following options or write in your own
proposal.

  * generic - `string-normalize` converts to a single implementation-defined normal form
  * separate - `string-compose-canonical`, `string-decompose-canonical` and `string-decompose-compatibility` gives orthogonal control over the normalization being performed
  * specific - `string-normalize-{nfd,nfc,nfkd,nfkc}` converts explicitly to the four normal forms defined in the Unicode standard
  * agnostic - `string-ni=?' etc. provides an API of basic normalization insensitive procedures without explicitly converting the strings, analagous to `string-ci=?'

Note UnicodeCowan currently provides specific normalization
procedures.

  * '''Options:''' generic/core, generic/module, separate/core, separate/module, specific/core, specific/module, agnostic/core, agnostic/module, no, wg2, undecided
  * '''Preferences:''' agnostic/core, agnostic/module, undecided, wg2, generic/core, generic/module, specific/module, separate/module, specific/core, separate/core 

There are some artificial dichotomies introduced in this ballot item. My preferred solution includes all of the above, actually; with agnostic/core, generic/core, separate/module and specific/module.

time

2010-11-01 15:35:27

version

1